After World War II, the United Nation was established under the Treaty of Versailles. The purposes of the UN are to promote peace and security, maintain good relationship among nations, and solve international economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems through cooperation. On one hand, it is more useful than League of Nations and does help dealing with international issues. On the other hand, many people believe UN is inefficient in solving problems due to P5 members' veto, its function as a forum for debate, and powerless.
Primarily, veto power really affects the effectiveness of UN. The victors of World War II and the founders of the United Nations, United States, Russia, China, British, and France, have veto power, which allows them veto any resolution that they don't agree with. The origin of veto is the believe of great powers can act together while protect their own sovereignty. However, it has been abused by the P5 powers for their own interests. For example, Russia and China veto the resolution on Syria because they see their national interests over humanitarian. UN is the organization based on collective security system, which tells that your issue is our issue. The actions of states' interests over collective interest shouldn't exist. Thus, the abuse of veto should be ended.
Second, UN is majorly the forum for debate. Every representatives from states all around the world gather at UN just to argue for their country's agendas and they are actually powerless in their country. In addition, countries ruled by bad dictators can use debates to delay resolving issue if it is not their favors. For instance, Iraqis were suffering under the UN's economic sanction while Saddam Hussein tried to prevent supports provided by UN. UN should enforce efficient debates to avoid it becomes a tools of dictators.
Lastly, the United Nations is actually powerless. It required supports from its members to take actions. For any regimes, UN can only consider sanctions at most. This is like telling the regimes feel free to do what they want. For example, North Korea has tested nuclear weapons and announced that they would launch nuclear missiles, which threaten the world. Unfortunately, UN couldn't take any direct action to stop it.
The founding of United Nation is based on liberalism. However, realism dominates international relations for the passing decades. Liberalism and realism can't go hand in hand in solving international conflicts. UN reflects the conflicts between liberal's and realists' believes. It is ineffective because of the abuse of veto, function as forum for debate, and the lack of power. Is there any possibility to make UN better? Or it is just a ideal that can never come true.
Primarily, veto power really affects the effectiveness of UN. The victors of World War II and the founders of the United Nations, United States, Russia, China, British, and France, have veto power, which allows them veto any resolution that they don't agree with. The origin of veto is the believe of great powers can act together while protect their own sovereignty. However, it has been abused by the P5 powers for their own interests. For example, Russia and China veto the resolution on Syria because they see their national interests over humanitarian. UN is the organization based on collective security system, which tells that your issue is our issue. The actions of states' interests over collective interest shouldn't exist. Thus, the abuse of veto should be ended.
Second, UN is majorly the forum for debate. Every representatives from states all around the world gather at UN just to argue for their country's agendas and they are actually powerless in their country. In addition, countries ruled by bad dictators can use debates to delay resolving issue if it is not their favors. For instance, Iraqis were suffering under the UN's economic sanction while Saddam Hussein tried to prevent supports provided by UN. UN should enforce efficient debates to avoid it becomes a tools of dictators.
Lastly, the United Nations is actually powerless. It required supports from its members to take actions. For any regimes, UN can only consider sanctions at most. This is like telling the regimes feel free to do what they want. For example, North Korea has tested nuclear weapons and announced that they would launch nuclear missiles, which threaten the world. Unfortunately, UN couldn't take any direct action to stop it.
The founding of United Nation is based on liberalism. However, realism dominates international relations for the passing decades. Liberalism and realism can't go hand in hand in solving international conflicts. UN reflects the conflicts between liberal's and realists' believes. It is ineffective because of the abuse of veto, function as forum for debate, and the lack of power. Is there any possibility to make UN better? Or it is just a ideal that can never come true.